"Coup
d’etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not
only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because
the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing
political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even
though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to
coups d’etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant
style."
The question to ask is whether 'political apathy’ now 'prevails as the dominant style’ in the United States of today or not?
With
the unending 'war on terror’ resulting in a heavy tampering of the
American Constitution by the current US Administration, and the
consequent granting of virtually limitless powers to the President of
United States for the duration of the unending war, a real
'Constitutional Conundrum' has been created.
Ironically, this
self-granting of limitless powers in turn has now manifested itself in
an inverse power vacuum being created at the decision making level that
is now becoming more and more visible with each passing day. Despite
the fact that American nation seems to understand more than any other
nation that the armed forces exist to support and defend government,
not to be the government, yet faced with an intractable national
problem on the one hand, and having an efficient and capable military
on the other, it is all too enticing to start viewing the military as a
gainful solution or as the 'ultimate saviors’
a la certain banana republics where the military does indeed call the shots.
The
seeds of the outrage are all there. The war-ravaged economy is in the
dumps, American casualties in Iraq are mounting with Iraq itself now in
the throes of a civil war, corruption in high places is rampant, the
environment is in trouble, the delicate subject of 'immigration’ has
been given a needless prod resulting in massive protests and political
scandals are exploding on almost daily basis in Washington. In addition
to all this, despite a national and international uproar, the current
American leadership seems to be inching inexorably towards yet another
war--this time with Iran.
Americans becoming frustrated with
democracy and disheartened with the apparent inability of their elected
government to negoatiate the nation’s confounding impasses, thus, is a
natural response. Unable to effect a change themselves, they may now be
looking for someone or something that could produce workable solutions.
Despite its misuse by the civilian leadership, the one institution of
government in which the Americans continue to retain faith is their
military.
Ever since Washington’s warnings about the dangers of
large military establishments in his farewell address, Americans have
generally regarded their armed forces with a careful mix of awe and
respect. For over two centuries that admiration was rewarded, and most
Americans have come to consider the very idea of a military coup
outrageous. To be sure, there always were eccentric conspiracy
theorists that saw the Pentagon’s hand in the assassination of
President Kennedy, President Nixon’s downfall, and similar events yet
not very many Americans would think that a military coup d’etat in
America of today is a tangible possibility.
That fact may be slowly, but surely, changing. According to a very recent
Guardian report,
for example, the US government is increasingly faced with a
intensifying split between its civilian and military leadership over
the war on Iraq after a fourth retired general called for the defense
secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to stand down. This latest was retired
Major General Charles Swannack, who led the 82nd Airborne Division in
Iraq. The other three were Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the
former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Major
General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi troops until 2004
and retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central
Command.
The unparalleled ferocity of the attacks and repeated
calls for serving officers to go public with their dissent was starting
to cause concern among military analysts. "If this opens up so we have
more and more officers speaking up and blaming Rumsfeld and blaming
senior civilians, then it is possibly heading towards a fairly
dangerous civilian-military crisis," opined Andrew Bacevich, a military
historian at Boston University.
Richard Gabriel fittingly
observed in his book 'To Serve with Honor’ that, "When one discusses
dissent, loyalty, and the limits of military obligations, the central
problem is that the military represents a threat to civil order not
because it will usurp authority, but because it does not speak out on
critical policy decisions. The soldier fails to live up to his oath to
serve the country if he does not speak out when he sees his civilian or
military superiors executing policies he feels to be wrong." While
Gabriel was right when he described military leadership’s
responsibilities vis-à-vis the civilian leadership, he may have been
off the mark when he dismissed the military’s potential to threaten
civil order.
Efforts to carve a role for the military in
America’s civilian affairs can be traced to as far back as the Carter
administration. According to two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Knut Royce
in a July 1983 series in the San Francisco Examiner, a presidential
directive had been drafted by a few Carter administration personnel in
1979 "to allow the military to take control of the government for 90
days in the event of an emergency." A requirement on page one of the
directive said, "Keeping the government functioning after a nuclear war
is a secret, costly project that detractors claim jeopardizes US
traditions and saves a privileged few." There was a heated debate,
Royce noted, within the Carter administration as to just what
constituted an "emergency."
Then again during the Iran-Contra
affair it came to light that a few high officials of the US government
were planning a possible military/civilian coup. Miami Herald on July
5, 1987 ran the story. The article, by Alfonzo Chardy, revealed Oliver
North's involvement in plans for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to take over federal, state and local functions during an
ill-defined national emergency.
With the unending 'war on
terror’ continuing endlessly, the incessant chant of 'enemies all
around’ and the inevitable militarization of the American society, the
armed forces have now penetrated many vital aspects of American
society. There now is an entire generation of young Americans who have
grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel strutting
about their streets and on their campuses. Military uniforms now draw
no stares. Furthermore, with the ever increasing importance attached to
agencies like Homeland Security and FEMA, the military is now ideally
positioned in thousands of communities to support the supposed coup.
Given
these treacherous times, there are increasing indications that
Americans' traditional and strong resistance to any military
interference into civilian affairs may be waning. The time may not be
very far when they start re-thinking the appeal and need of that
resistance. Indeed, many may already be comparing the military’s
principled competence with the shenanigans and uselessness of their
elected officials, and finding the former more capable.
American
public’s unease too is now increasing in a direct proportion to the top
military brass’s voicing of its opinion. The terms 'impeachment’,
'censuring’, 'removal from power’ etc. have now become a common lexicon
not just in the fringe media. Never before has the threat of disorder
occasioned by an increasingly isolated Chief Executive so precipitated
with each passing day. Needless to say that the inept civilian
leadership, on all sides of the American political spectrum, direly
necessitates a strong headship in these troubled times.
With the
current US administration getting the lowest ever job approval ratings
from American public; the country now suffers from a deep pessimism
about politicians and government after years of false promises and
outright lies. Ruling politicians and their proposals seem rotten and
repetitive. With surfacing of reports of vote rigging in the last
elections, the American voters now seem to have also given up hope of
finding answers through the ballot. Even a cursory glance at the
alternative media shows that an increasing number of Americans have
come to view the chief function of their government as inventing a
security threat and then turning the job over to the military. If that
be the case, some may argue, why not remove the corrupt middlemen and
entrust the task directly to the military.
The "environment of apathy" Janos characterized as a forerunner to a coup seems to have arrived in America.
America, ladies and gentlemen, has entered a dangerous phase.
Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain
